(As prepared for delivery)

Well thank you, Laura and Robert, for your introductions, and also for hosting us here at this beautiful venue. As we seek feedback and have discussions on the U.S. National Action Plan through these Open Dialogues, support from the Haas School, the Global Compact, and others is essential. So thanks for making today happen.

In my time here at the podium I want to briefly discuss (1) why the U.S. government is doing a National Action Plan , (2) what we’ve learned so far from consultations with stakeholders , (3) and some thoughts on how we can make today’s discussion robust and effective for all of us here.

In September of last year, President Obama announced that the United States would undertake creating a National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct. The President did this to be transparent and consistent about how our government encourages companies to achieve high standards of responsible business conduct. The National Action Plans provides the opportunity to highlight good practices and make recommendations on how the U.S. government can better partner with all stakeholders to find solutions to the complex challenges that can arise in companies’ global operations.

Responsible business conduct is about encouraging transparency and accountability, verifying success stories, and identifying areas for improvement through the help of stakeholders, including those on the ground in countries where U.S. businesses and their supply chain partners are working. As many of you know, much of work in this space is grounded in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. We want to be responsive to the international community’s call for implementation of these standards and demonstrate leadership at the same time. We’re looking to get this right, and will work with businesses, workers’ organizations, civil society, academia, investors, and others to do so.

So why now? Well, the Obama Administration has been focused on issues of responsible business conduct for some time and in a variety of ways, from combatting corruption, to non-discrimination and inclusion of vulnerable groups, and more. We decided that this was an opportune time to convene a broad cross section of the U.S. government to discuss how we can coordinate and advance these various initiatives in consultation and coordination with outside stakeholders.

The NAP is also an opportunity for the U.S. government to explain what we expect of ourselves and reflect how U.S. businesses inform our work on global guidance with other governments, international organizations, and various stakeholder groups. And so that’s what we’re seeking to do. We had the first Open Dialogue with stakeholders in December in New York, and this is our second such in-person meeting. We also have two more coming up in Norman, Oklahoma on April 2nd and in Washington, D.C. on April 16th.

We also have established internal government working on groups on key areas of focus. Those working groups are: (1) human rights, (2) labor rights, (3) trade, tax, and investment, (4) procurement, (5) transparency and anti-corruption, and (6) land tenure and agriculture. And we just concluded our first round of written submissions. We received many letters from various stakeholders which provided helpful feedback on the process and recommended priorities. We’re carefully reviewing these submissions and look forward to continued input. Although we’re accepting submissions on a rolling basis, our next deadline for written submissions will be April 24.

Since we are not the first government to embark on a National Action Plan, we also have the benefit of learning from other states who have completed similar NAPs. We have reviewed these national action plans carefully, and are in regular communication with these governments, as well as those who, like us, are in the middle of their NAP process.

In considering other NAPs, we’ve drawn inspiration for possible areas of effort, as well as lessons about what has or has not worked from a process perspective in other contexts. For those who are not familiar with those existing NAPs and are curious about the kinds of commitments we are reviewing at this stage in our process, I want to highlight some commitments that we think are innovative and helpful to learn from. For example, through their National Action Plan, the Danish government required Danish companies that wish to benefit from Danish government mechanisms that facilitate commercial partnerships to integrate corporate social responsibility strategically in their business operations and to that they had performed due diligence in relevant areas, including on human rights.

Second, the UK’s action plan established a new Overseas Business Risk service, which provides information about business environments in the countries where the UK Trade and Investment service has a presence, and includes specific country human rights information and links to the UNGPs and other relevant tools and guidance.

Finally, the UK also pledged in its NAP to work with industry and civil society to develop specific guidance for those parts of the information and communication sector that are not covered by existing export control regulations. That work culminated in the development this year of the production of a document called “Assessing Cyber Security Export Risks” that provides human rights-related guidance to companies exporting surveillance and big-data analysis products.

There are many other great commitments that have been made through the national action plans to-date, and so I mention these just to give a flavor of some of the items we’ve taken note of and are seeking to learn from.

Finally, I’d like to turn to the discussions we have ahead of us this afternoon. This is a room full of experts, and we in the government want to capitalize on your knowledge to help move our NAP process forward. So, a few ideas on how we can do that: First, highlight examples of what is going well, either here in the United States or elsewhere. What examples can we learn from and build on? And, just as importantly, when things are not going well, identify why that is and how we could address those gaps.

Second, identify how we can both promote and incentivize responsible conduct. What I mean is, how do we find a good mix of policies that (a) use our role as a policymaker to influence behavior, (b) allow us to collaborate with different stakeholders to leverage our comparative advantages, and (c) spotlight best practices and provide clear expectations. We have a lot of different tools and resources and we want to capitalize on that.

And lastly, where are the most urgent needs? This National Action Plan is a great opportunity to take stock of what we’re currently doing to encourage responsible business conduct and to move the issue forward, but it will be an iterative process and we won’t tackle every possible RBC challenge in 2015 alone. As such, what should we be prioritizing through this process? How do we channel limited resources to most effectively make progress?

So to sum up, (1) what’s going well and what gaps exist, (2) how do we find the right mix of policies and practices, and (3) what are the most pressing challenges? The more specific your feedback is, the more helpful it will be.

With that, I’ll turn the floor back to Robert so we can continue these important discussions and learn from all of you. I’ll be taking diligent notes, as I know my other U.S. government colleagues will be as well. Thank you for being here with us today and being part of this historic National Action Plan process.